#1. Work to Dispel Notion Libby's a Radical
- Login to post comments
And I am not going to get into one of your constant pissing contests.
Do you see what I did Bob, and how you reacted? You stated that MOST Mainers don't give a rats ass, and I called you on it. That is what we need to do to the D's.
It's not considered "well" to post the content of PM's on the open AMG forum. They're called "private messages" for a reason.
As for LIBBY LIBERAL MITCHELL, check out the other thread, on "defining" her - she's holding her fancy celebratory raise-money dinner at a swanky hotel ----> in BOSTON.
Golly -- I can tell how much she cares about creating jobs for MAINERS.
How about this....In the sleepy little border town of Berwick Maine where we boast one coffee shop, one breakfast and lunch place and a few auto repair shops...they struggle daily to meet to their payroll and keep food on their own tables...it's tough...tougher because New Hampshire enjoys a 7.6% per capita tax burden where Maine is nearly double that at 14.2%. Along comes Libby and her merry band of thieves in an effort to increase the revenues flowing into the state coffers... she underhandedly trys to make a negative look like a positive to feather her own special interest nest and buy her some more votes...my auto mechanic hollers at me...Beth, this is going to cost me a thousand bucks a month...the democrat trailer repair man down the street wonders how he can stay in business...after 4 years he has just started to turn a profit...and the waitresses at that little eatery are wondering how they will absorb about 15 bucks a week in less gratuity from the folks that are on a fixed income....jeeze they might stop coming out at all...and what about that visit to take my granddaughter to York Animal Kingdom...I just can't afford to pay that ticket price....I'll tell you how we show Libby is in this for Libby...we keep going door to door, we keep pounding the pavement and showing people proof face to face of the destructive policy's this woman continues to foist on us...face to face, door to door, as many boots on the ground as we can engage...it worked in the primary and it WILL work in the general. We take her record...she can't hide and we knock on every darn door there is and we tell the truth.
I don't know why any christian would not believe in intelligent design.
Gerald is showing us what the dems will harp on and Lepage should have a one sentence answer to the social issue baiters and then talk about promoting business by getting government off our backs.
good post Beth
Thank you Mike G
I do believe the next 4 months will be a heck of a ride. I'm glad I met a lot of nice people to enjoy it with me!
#3 Tom C Thu, 06/10/2010 - 10:51am:
.
RINO: "Why do you want to teach such superstition as "creationism" in schools?"
.
LePage: "I think people can believe whatever they want to believe. But I think that the idea that stars and planets and plants and animals and people just happened to be created by atoms and molecules bouncing around randomly is a bit far-fetched.
.
"I think it's the most common of common sense to present the idea that there certainly seems to be an intelligent design behind creation. And to present that idea to children wondering about the origin of the universe is a fair thing to do.
.
"I certainly wonder about the motives of people who would strongly object to that."
It has been asked several times if Paul LePage actually said this and if so what the source is. The question has been repeatedly evaded. Did he say it or not? If not, exactly what did he say? Does anyone know and have a source?
Do you think he believes that? And do you think it would be a good thing for him to say?
Tom C: Do you think he believes that? And do you think it would be a good thing for him to say?
Please stop evading a straightforward question by deflecting it with other, diversionary questions. You made a specific statement purporting to quote a candidate for governor. Do you have a source documenting that he said what you claimed he said or not?
Put it in context.
Tom C: Put it in context.
I did not want to accuse him of this without further evidence, but I think it's fair to take that continued refusal to answer to mean that the "context" is that Tom made it up and doesn't want to admit that he lied.
It appears that the dishonest "context" was that Tom wanted to hijack the thread in order to promote religion and theocracy by dishonestly pretending that a candidate for governor said what Tom wanted him to say. Telling us that he would have preferred that he said it would have been too honest -- and would have required explanation and acknowledging the contrast with the actual campaign. It's bad enough that the progressive left is doing this.
So you say.
Actually, had you read some other the other posts around the same area, you would have seen that we were PROPOSING things for LePage to say. A bright person would have picked that up by looking at the other posts around that time, noticing another post I had of other sample responses, and the fact that another poster proposed a different “proposed quote” a few posts later. As far as not being responsive- I WAS responsive, and my use of the past, present and future imperfect in my responses was the giveaway. Someone who had a pretty good grip on the use of English would have picked it up. So, it's easy to see why you and Gerald didn't.
I thought the whole thing was blinding obvious, and was surprised at the rather dull-witted "demands" that I provide my source for what were pretty obviously proposed responses. I suppose I could have stated that right way, but I doubted if anyone fairly bright would have had an issue with it, and I was (and continue to be) amused at the protestations.
But you can now go to Solitary Path's posts and make stringent demands that he provide sources for his posts. I mean, you're the official cop of ASD now.
Or you could continue to call me names. It's up to you.
Indeed - the comment in which Tom C fabricated a quote from Paul LePage is #3 to this thread - go back and look at the context of the previous three posts.
And in post #7, another poster responded to me by put a post in quotes, providing another "alternative response" - so he had no problem understanding that we were just tossing ideas around.
So, we can see that the more intelligent readers had no problem understanding the discussion.
I'll take responsibility for my posts, but I won't take responsibility for the comprehension abilities (or lack thereof) of the reader.
TC - It is really not fair to point out the obvious intellectual shortcomings of our friends on the Left. It is better to laugh at the dog as he chases his tail. At least the dog behaves without arrogance.
OK, I doing just that until I was called a liar, then I felt compelled to speak up.
But, you are correct, and arrogance, while fun, and even possibly earned, is a most unbecoming trait, and I apologize for it.
A little.
Sorry, TC, I was not clear... the arrogance to which I refer is all GERALD's...
No, that's fine, and I appreciate that.
However your comment seemed to convict me of one of my own personal flaws... Like the Corinthians' consideration of Paul's letter, it is the resulting examination of conscience that brings us closer to God.
2 Corinthians 7:8-12
8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while—
9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.
10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter.
12 So even though I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong or of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are.
Tom C: So you say. Actually, had you read some other the other posts around the same area, you would have seen that we were PROPOSING things for LePage to say.
You didn't "propose" anything. In post #3, with no such "context", you misattributed religious and theocratic statements to Paul LePage which he did not say.
A bright person would have picked that up by looking at the other posts around that time, noticing another post I had of other sample responses, and the fact that another poster proposed a different “proposed quote” a few posts later. As far as not being responsive- I WAS responsive, and my use of the past, present and future imperfect in my responses was the giveaway.
You evaded the queries for the source of your misattribution. You are not honest. "Playing" with people is no excuse. You hijacked a serious thread on politics and Libby Mitchell to promote religious dogmatism and snide misrepresentations of science in the words of a candidate for governor who did not say them.
Someone who had a pretty good grip on the use of English would have picked it up. So, it's easy to see why you and Gerald didn't. I thought the whole thing was blinding obvious, and was surprised at the rather dull-witted "demands" that I provide my source for what were pretty obviously proposed responses. I suppose I could have stated that right way, but I doubted if anyone fairly bright would have had an issue with it, and I was (and continue to be) amused at the protestations.
Given your position, your motive and your dishonesty you are in no position to claim to be "brighter" than anyone as a sign of alleged superiority or anything else. People who do in fact have a "grip" on the language but treat it as an honest means of communication, rather than your snide manipulations, gave you, despite suspicions, a benefit of the doubt you did not deserve. You responded by playing with them, which resulted in insisting that you answer the questions you evaded, which ultimately flushed out what you are doing despite your evasive attempts to avoid admitting it, which you did not want to see discussed. Anyone can see who turned out to be "brighter", not that that matters. Perhaps others did not care if the issues became explicitly named. I did.
But you can now go to Solitary Path's posts and make stringent demands that he provide sources for his posts. I mean, you're the official cop of ASD now. Or you could continue to call me names. It's up to you.
This has nothing to do with "official cops" or "name calling". Anyone has a right to call you on observable dishonesty in manipulation and making up quotes. You are responsible for what you write. That cannot be deflected with more snide misrepresentations and bizarre claims about how much "brighter" you think you are because you toy with people.
The topic of the thread was a serious and important subject in a serious political race, not something to be buried by an evangelist, who like the progressives, wishes a serious candidate for governor who is in fact badly needed would take up his fringe cause and divert his campaign into theocracy against modern science.
As John McKane put it in essence, when one is confronting an opponent with a strong right cross, one does not lead with an irrelevant and self-destructive glass jaw that the opponent desperately wants you to appear to have, all at the expense of the real issues of the campaign, including the ideological anti-American statism of the progressives embraced by Barack Obama and Libby Mitchell.
I wasn't dishonest at all. I'm under no obligation to respond to anyone's post or question to me, and when I finally did (although I didn't have to) I clearly showed how those were proposed quotes in a discussion how to address the issue. Nothing I did was dishonest. The only dishonest thing here is your wanton baseless attack on me.
Other people understood the discussion just fine. Your, or other's, inability to understand the discussion doesn't make me dishonest, sir.
As far as "derailing the thread," again, I urge you to read more carefully. The FIRST POST in the thread mentioned the claim of LePage's "creationism," and so I thought it was appropriate to respond to it.
However, you are clearly a person who will form a strong opinion without regard to all the facts. I guess talking about matters in the very first post didn't meet YOUR agenda, so you need to attack me personally.
Interesting rules for discussion you have.
Tom C: I wasn't dishonest at all. I'm under no obligation to respond to anyone's post or question to me, and when I finally did (although I didn't have to) I clearly showed how those were proposed quotes in a discussion how to address the issue. Nothing I did was dishonest. The only dishonest thing here is your wanton baseless attack on me.
Your posts are dishonest because you deliberately misattributed quotes to a candidate for governor that he did not say and then consistently evaded queries for your source as you toyed with people. You also misrepresented the science of evolution, which may have been either more snide dishonesty or simple ignorance. There is no "dishonest baseless attack" on you. This is about what you wrote in your own posts. If you don't want to respond to queries about your posts, then tell the truth and don't be evasive as you pretend to respond.
Other people understood the discussion just fine. Your, or other's, inability to understand the discussion doesn't make me dishonest, sir.
The reason why you are dishonest has been explained to you several times. Everyone understands what you were doing. Stop pretending that understanding your posts has nothing to do with what you write.
As far as "derailing the thread," again, I urge you to read more carefully. The FIRST POST in the thread mentioned the claim of LePage's "creationism," and so I thought it was appropriate to respond to it.
You did not respond to it. You misquoted LePage worse than the progressives. The initial quote by the progressives "mentioning" creationism does not make it the topic of the thread. The thread topic in Scott's original post is the attempts by progressives to "dispel" Mitchell's "radical" record. They illustrate that they are doing that in part by a deflection attacking Paul LePage in characterizing him as a creationist theocrat, which they know would be rejected by Maine voters for good reason. Your 'response' is to oblige them by trying to turn him into a theocrat because that is what you want. Promotion of theocracy was not the topic of the thread and not something advocated in Paul Lepage's campaign.
One proper response to the progressives, previously mentioned, is that LePage wants "job creationism"; his methods of doing that have nothing to do with religious anti-science promotions discrediting his own campaign.
However, you are clearly a person who will form a strong opinion without regard to all the facts. I guess talking about matters in the very first post didn't meet YOUR agenda, so you need to attack me personally. Interesting rules for discussion you have.
Stop making things up. The facts are what you wrote in this thread. It has nothing to do with any alleged "agenda" of anyone else that you falsely "guess" was not in the original post, and nothing to do with "personal attacks", which are all your own as you continue to misrepresent, speculate, and make baseless personal accusations instead of addressing what is written.
Most important for this thread is that the matters of Libby Mitchell's progressive left ideology and her supporters' attempt to dodge that in the campaign, and the actual campaign of Paul LePage to try to salvage this state, are serious issues, not to be undermined by an irrelevant and destructive anti-science agenda put into his mouth. How mankind evolved over millions of years is a question of science, not politics. It should not be allowed to be turned into a theocratic political advocacy which few people care about or want in Maine and which would destroy Paul LePage's campaign and any hope of taking the state back from the progressives.
Yeah, OK, you say that I deliberatly lied and tried to misrepresent what LePage said. Why, I did that, no one really knows, but you are certain that was the case.
And, I'm sure that anyone reading this thread would come to just that very that conclusion.
Of course, the other possibility is that all this is happening in your busy little mind and had no bearing on what was posted here, or on any reality at all.
This once again does not address what was actually posted and what has been said to you. I am not interested in your evasive, snide, personal feuding in the form of a mentality equivalent to a school yard brawl. Neither does that approach -- in the name of anti-science fundamentalism no less -- do anything to help Paul LePage replace the progressives in power.
J. McKane:Quote:Do you really believe that we are the product of random, mindless particles bouncing around that just happened to come together to form US?
That's not the point. I won't belabor it.
It's not only not the point, it is has nothing to do with it or what almost anyone "really believes". It is a straw man ignorantly ridiculing and misrepresenting the science of biological evolution. Fundamentalist dogma vs. the "random" is a false alternative. Everyone with any knowledge of the subject understands that evolution is a fact and that the science deals with "how" and "how do we know" -- neither of which is "random bouncing around". Natural selection from genetic mutation is neither metaphysically random nor teleological. Genetic mutation follows causal laws without regard to outcome determined by natural selection.
Few people, including candidates for governor, have the time or inclination for a lifetime study of the details, evidence and theory of evolution, but that is not necessary for any of us to have a rudimentary knowledge of what it is, the difference between science of natural causes versus fundamentalist faith in the supernatural, that it is not the proper task of government to hijack schools in order to promote ideology, that the governor does not have the authority to influence or dictate local school curricula, and that if candidates expect to be electable outside of places like Afghanistan then they should not campaign for "creationism" a.k.a. "intelligent design" in the schools and publicly "wonder about the motives of people who would strongly object to that". Anyone can believe anything he wants regardless of limited understanding or support of science, but keep it out of politics and political interference further undermining whatever is left of education.
Yeah, OK, ewv.
"Everyone with any knowledge of the subject understands that evolution is a fact ..."
That must be why they call it the theory of evolution.
Mike Travers said: That must be why they call it the theory of evolution.
Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark.
It may only be a theory but it is science. Creationism is not.
Strawman, Mr. McKane. The statement was not about whether it was science, but whether it was fact. It's not, but it's taught as fact.
I have never seen evolution taught as anything other than an imperfect theory - but a theory that seems to agree with all biological science. Like other scientific theories, it is based on the scientific method.
- Login to post comments
Robert: Wonder no more, because I don't know. And I really don't care. And I am not going to get into one of your constant pissing contests.
I am concentrating on doing what I can. Raising money. Getting sign locations nailed down. Had a great start today. You fellows continue to cackle, bitch and moan about things that aren't important to me. Just me.
After reading about creationism, lack of party unity, what Peter Mills thinks, why Paul isn't showing up at the CCRC, I'm thinking that I need to check out and go help Paul LePage out with some friends who want to make difference... and put the AMG crew out of my life until November. I'll log on again and find out why things didn't work out. There are plenty of experts who will be able to tell me.